Juan and Ken,

I agree with what you say in this letter. I understand the necessity of working with both political parties to build support for LGBT civil rights. Working within the GOP is an important function that LCR can play.

In 2004 LCR made the decision not to endorse President Bush because of his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. That was a courageous stand to take. Hopefully when all is said and done, LCR will show such courage again and not endorse a candidate who has opposed LGBT civil rights simply because he is the Republican nominee.

Statement of Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon about Gov. Sarah Palin

“Alaska Governor Sarah Palin can help Sen. McCain win this election by appealing to independent and young voters. She’s a mainstream Republican who will unite the Party and serve John McCain well as Vice President. Gov. Palin is an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters.”

http://online.logcabin.org/

Do you earnestly think this letter will reach any ears/eyes?

The usual response from LCR's out to "educate" will be "Oh, I had run out of toilet paper, how convenient."

OK, I am a divisive bitch.
I am going to attack the LCR's again.

Palin is anti-gay, unreservedly and unapologetically unless you count her "friends" who must all be LCR's since any of the rest of us would speak up to her in opposition to the damage that she causes to our community...

She is woefully inexperienced, with less than two years governing a state with a population half the size of Muncie Indiana and as commander in chief of a national guard half the size of the Philadelphia Police Department...

And the LCR's, in their insiaiable desire to line their own pockets at the cost of the rest of our well being and their unrelivable hunger to curry favour with our oppressors are trying to sell this anti-feminist to us as something good?

Please, spare me; better yet, spare us all....

I'm beginning to think the LCR folk are going senile. Andrew Sullivan has had this to say about Palin:

But she is a rare Republican governor who signed benefits for gay couples into law, as a matter of constitutional equality. And she has gay friends.

I cannnot locate anything about Ms Palin actually signing into law benefits for gay couples. Even what Sullivan quotes (from a now defunct Wiki entry) said:

While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[28] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[30] ....

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[29]
I don't get it, does not Sullivan have the savvy anymore to recognize that, "She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter,[30]" means Palin does not support benefits for gay and lesbian couples? The Wiki article on her position now reads quite simply (as of my post):

Palin opposes same-sex marriage[26] and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.[99] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.[26]

Some people are doing some awfully strange things to justify their own beliefs in the Republican party.

They've had no trouble spinning McCain positively, who is a considerably worse prospect where positions are involved. I'm sure they won't have trouble spinning Palin positively for the sake of rationalizing partisanship.

From America's favorite gay Republican:

This deserves a second note from yours truly. McCain's pick was the most pro-gay move any Republican has made since George H.W. Bush added hate crimes against gays to the national statistical base. I know that's not saying much, but the details are here. Bottom line:

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples.

Yes, she opposes equality in marriage. So does Obama. And, yes, she's much worse than Obama on civil unions:

Palin said she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment. Elected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

But she is a rare Republican governor who signed benefits for gay couples into law, as a matter of constitutional equality. And she has gay friends. It's a good day for gay Republicans, and the clear public references to gay rights in all the major Democratic speeches last week shows how far we've come.

LCR's aren't alone.

I think for some beating up on the lcr's comes a little to easily.If one believes that lgbt rights are a universal need then making it political or about one party does a diservice to them.The Republican Party is an embarrassing mess right now not just to those who are lgbt but also to America.I would happily support a fiscally conservative socially liberal Republican party but I admit that is not to be at this time.But John Mc Cain as bad as he is,is still a move away from the far right and might be viewed as a baby step back to the center certainly someone worth trying to engage instead of turning into a steadfast enemy.While he may not be pro lgbt I feel that if he is elected president the tide may not turn back but that he would be less likely to support the on going violence towards us that the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to and maybe even supported by their anti lgbt retoric.The LCR has my respect for at the very least trying to advance are rights into a party that is less than receptive while at the same time being beat down by those they are trying to help.As a T I can say that I certainly don't have any worse feelings for the LCR's than say Barney Frank or HRC by the way anyone feel like helping pull that knife from my back?

It is hard to educate those whom we attack. If we go after the LCR how can they be expected to listen?

The LCR's are the GLBT equivalent of Black conservatives.

Selling out their own people for their own selfish gain.

We all deserve to have our opinions and our rights, and as Gays and Lesbians we are as diverse as the rest of the population, as an aids activist I wish that LCR would take a step back and look at what the greater good is for all of us. There are many gay people as their are straight who do not have the answer to other Gay & Lesbians best interest. We barely know anything about this woman and in my honest opinion I think the LCR are about as healthy & helpful as an ex-gay-gay.... Does it have to always get as bad as a re-election campaign based in a federal marriage amendment for Log Cabin Republicans to wake up and stop behaving as the GOP's doormat ? Look at the candidates individually b4 blindly throwing support behind someone that say's she has gay friends, and folded under pressure when she utilized her Veto, she wasn't trying to help us. Abstinence only platform - Oh yeah She sounds like our next Gay Diva. Please